Navigate:

Al Franken clashes with Focus on the Family executive

Franken is a co-sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act. |
AP Photo
Close

By ELIZABETH TITUS | 7/20/11 3:16 PM EDT
Updated: 7/21/11 9:02 AM EDT

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) took on a Focus on the Family executive at hearing on same-sex marriage Wednesday, challenging the validity of the witness’ testimony.

“I frankly don’t really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies these ways,” Franken told Thomas Minnery of Focus on the Family, the conservative Colorado-based group that opposes same-sex marriage.

Text Size

-

+

reset

Franken calls into question Focus on the Family witness

POLITICO 44

The study in question, published by a division of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department in 2010, found better health outcomes among children in nuclear families – a point Minnery, senior vice president for public policy, said means children are better off with straight, married parents.

But Franken pointed out that the study’s definition of “nuclear family” does not specify the gender of the parents in such families, suggesting a lack of evidence that same-sex couples’ kids are less healthy than the children of straight couples.

“Sen. Franken is right,” the lead author of the study told POLITICO. The survey did not exclude same-sex couples, said Debra L. Blackwell, Ph.D., nor did it exclude them from the “nuclear family” category provided their family met the study’s definition.

The study’s definition of nuclear family is: “one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents of all the children in the family.”

That means the study does not provide evidence that straight couples’ children necessarily fare better than same-sex couples’ kids, as Minnery claimed.

Franken is a co-sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act, introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, including Franken and Feinstein, heard testimony on the bill Wednesday. Testimony focused largely on the financial disparities DOMA creates between straight and gay married couples.

“I checked the study out,” Franken told Minnery, “and I would like to enter it into the record, if I may, that it actually doesn’t say what you said it says.”

“Isn’t it true, Mr. Minnery, that a married, same-sex couple that has had or adopted kids would fall under the definition of a nuclear family in the study that you cite?” Franken asked.

“I would think that the study when it cites nuclear family would mean by a family headed by husband and wife,” Minnery said.

“It doesn’t,” Franken said, winning big laughs from the audience before reading the study’s definition aloud and adding: “I frankly don’t really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies these ways.”

Way to go, Al! It is about time someone stood up to these self-appointed "experts" that try to control other people's personal lives. Usually their critical reasoning skills leave something to be desired, hence their backward positions. Besides, it's just unAmerican to deny other people's rights.

Please explain how Dianne Feinstein "came to power" by allegedly being "black mailed" by the gay community?

How would the "gay community" black mail her, and for what??

Dianne Feinstein was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1970, there practically was no "gay community" back then. She went on to become the Board President in 1978, and when the Mayor of San Francisco was assinated she was elected to take his seat. She was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1992, and has been re-elected multiple times, by the voters of California, gay and straight.

But for some reason you believe her leading effort to end DOMA is tied to her time in San Francisco in 1970 when she was being "black mailed" by the gay community!!??

Way to go, Al! It is about time someone stood up to these self-appointed "experts" that try to control other people's personal lives. Usually their critical reasoning skills leave something to be desired, hence their backward positions. Besides, it's just unAmerican to deny other people's rights.

Children need love, stability and a sense of security. A nuclear family is best. However, I think there needs to be more studies into the well being of children in same sex families. Not, because there is something wrong but something is out of balance with human nature. A man cannot teach a girl, how to be a woman and a woman cannot teach a boy how to be a man. That is why the nuclear family was traditionally, a man and a woman. But, in our society there are lots of opportunities for girls and boys to be around role models. I support the right of individuals to choose but, I also, think that there is need for common sense when approaching child rearing.

For those who are not aware, Dianne Feinstein came to power by being blackmailed by the SanFrancisco gay community. They threatened her with their power and lack of support if she did not give them her approval. I was a teen at the time and had no use for Feinstein and gays from that moment. As for Al Franken, he was elected by the democratic party's deceitful practices and has his own agenda. It does not take a genius to realize the damage done to young minds by being raised by deviates.

Based upon your rant, you might have been raised by real deviates as it appears you have a more damaged mind!

What you have described above is called democracy! You see, in a representative democratic system, the people of an area vote for someone to represent their views. The bay area happens to be very gay friendly, and so the representative of that area will likely be a champion of gay rights. This is much like a Detroit rep advocating for the auto industry or a representative from the southwest taking an interest in immigration.

May I suggest a dictatorship with you at the top as the preferred method of governing? You will never be disenfranchised again!